2023-03-29 18:10:48 by ambuda-bot
This page has not been fully proofread.
249
tryañga, etc. (two-membered, three-membered). As the figure stands,
however, only one metaphor is explicit and therefore must be simple
(śuddha); we may see this type as complex by definition (as Dandin
certainly does): the fourth possibility in the quartet samastavastu
(principal and subordinate), avayavi (principal), avayava (subordin-
ate), ekânga (part of the subordinate). If so, it differs from avayava
in that there all the subordinate aspects described must be made
subjects of the metaphor. Here some must be left literal, as, in
Maugham's example, the soul or the night.
tattvâpahnava, 'denial of the real': (1) a type of rūpaka in which the
existence of the real subject is denied, and the object is affirmed in
place of it. (2) D 2.95 (94). (3) nâitan mukham idam padmam na
netre bhramarāv imau । etāni kesarāṇy eva nâitā dantârcişas tava
(Dandin: "This is no face, but a lotus; these are not eyes, but bees;
these are flower filaments and not the gleams of her teeth"). (4)
"What looks like a stone wall to a layman is a triumphal arch to a
corporation lawyer* (Finley P. Dunne). (5) Formally, this figure is
just the inverse of tattvåkhyāna, where the subject is affirmed in
place of the object, but affirmation is classified as simile, denial as
metaphor. This difference testifies again to that more basic distinc-
tion between simile and metaphor: the former is in principle realistic,
the latter is in principle figurative (cf. upamā rūpaka). Denying the
existence of the object of comparison does no more than reaffirm
the "pre-similar" nature of thin whereas de ing the existence of
the subject strikes at the very heart of all actuality (which, for the
purposes of poetics, we may take as a complex of subjects, attributes,
and actions).
GLOSSARY
niravayava, 'without members': (1) a non-complex metaphor; that is,
one showing no metaphorical identification of subsidiary aspects or
elements. (2) R 8.41,46. (3) (4) See (5). (5) Cf. savayava. This
figure is subdivided into four types: śuddha (one metaphor), mālā
(several independent metaphors), rašanā (several interdependent
metaphors), and paramparita (a single metaphor with a multiple
predicate or object). See these terms for examples.
paramparita, 'continuous': (1) a type of non-complex rūpaka in which
the main metaphor is continued by a second which is grammatically
subordinate to the object of the first and which gives a rationale for
its identification. (2) R 8.46-47 (51), M 145. (3) smaraśabaracă-
payaşțir jayati janânandajaladhiśaśilekhä lävaṇyasalilasindhuḥ
sakalakalākamalasarasiyam (Rudrața; the girl is metaphorically
tryañga, etc. (two-membered, three-membered). As the figure stands,
however, only one metaphor is explicit and therefore must be simple
(śuddha); we may see this type as complex by definition (as Dandin
certainly does): the fourth possibility in the quartet samastavastu
(principal and subordinate), avayavi (principal), avayava (subordin-
ate), ekânga (part of the subordinate). If so, it differs from avayava
in that there all the subordinate aspects described must be made
subjects of the metaphor. Here some must be left literal, as, in
Maugham's example, the soul or the night.
tattvâpahnava, 'denial of the real': (1) a type of rūpaka in which the
existence of the real subject is denied, and the object is affirmed in
place of it. (2) D 2.95 (94). (3) nâitan mukham idam padmam na
netre bhramarāv imau । etāni kesarāṇy eva nâitā dantârcişas tava
(Dandin: "This is no face, but a lotus; these are not eyes, but bees;
these are flower filaments and not the gleams of her teeth"). (4)
"What looks like a stone wall to a layman is a triumphal arch to a
corporation lawyer* (Finley P. Dunne). (5) Formally, this figure is
just the inverse of tattvåkhyāna, where the subject is affirmed in
place of the object, but affirmation is classified as simile, denial as
metaphor. This difference testifies again to that more basic distinc-
tion between simile and metaphor: the former is in principle realistic,
the latter is in principle figurative (cf. upamā rūpaka). Denying the
existence of the object of comparison does no more than reaffirm
the "pre-similar" nature of thin whereas de ing the existence of
the subject strikes at the very heart of all actuality (which, for the
purposes of poetics, we may take as a complex of subjects, attributes,
and actions).
GLOSSARY
niravayava, 'without members': (1) a non-complex metaphor; that is,
one showing no metaphorical identification of subsidiary aspects or
elements. (2) R 8.41,46. (3) (4) See (5). (5) Cf. savayava. This
figure is subdivided into four types: śuddha (one metaphor), mālā
(several independent metaphors), rašanā (several interdependent
metaphors), and paramparita (a single metaphor with a multiple
predicate or object). See these terms for examples.
paramparita, 'continuous': (1) a type of non-complex rūpaka in which
the main metaphor is continued by a second which is grammatically
subordinate to the object of the first and which gives a rationale for
its identification. (2) R 8.46-47 (51), M 145. (3) smaraśabaracă-
payaşțir jayati janânandajaladhiśaśilekhä lävaṇyasalilasindhuḥ
sakalakalākamalasarasiyam (Rudrața; the girl is metaphorically